9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de warehouse entry No. 2/56 on 2nd July, 1956. It appears that the excise authorities took a representative sample of the goods and sent it to the Chemical Examiner for examination and report. The Chemical Examiner made his report on 23rd October, 1959, that the tobacco content was 51.9% calculated on the basis that tobacco has ash content of 19%. From that report, the Excise authorities prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner having made any such application. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was necessary to draw the attention of the Supdt. to the said application as the same showed that the tobacco, as originally deposited was unmarketable and there could have been no point in the petitioner substituting the same. The petitioner also enquired regarding the basis of the suspicion that the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Chemical Examiner and his order inter alia observed : "The party has been clearly told that the charge of substitution is based on the report of the Chemical Examiner, a relevant extract of which has been duly supplied to the party. As such, there is no provision of producing the Chemical Examiner for cross-examination by the party. Further the fact of Central Excise Inspector having made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal Examiner amounted to denial of natural justice. 3. By his order dated 5th October, 1961, the Supdt. of C.E. imposed a penalty of Rs. 50/- on the petitioner and ordered confiscation of the goods. He, however, gave an opportunity to the petitioner to get the goods released on payment of fine of Rs. 70/ - in addition to the basic and additional excise duty, which came to over Rs. 7,000/-. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sample between the period it was taken and analysed. For this reason, the three main orders have to be quashed. 5. Mr. Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondents raised an objection that the petitioner failed to avail of alternative remedy, and therefore, the petition should not be entertained. For the reasons given in M/s. Gupta Tobacco Co. v. Collector, Central Excise (C.W. 156-D/1963) petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
